supernatural and religions

do you link religion/god with supernatural force/being or do you think it is just a fact of life and let's just get on with it.

I find consider supernatural to be related with sci-fi/fantasy/fairy stories and not a goddly matter.
The reason I think is because I have no understanding of how a concept of something natural has become super in the sense that it has, as protrayed by books and media, some sudden superpowers such as the likes of superman/woman comes to mind. Superman power is to fly for example and move momumental buildings.
It is rather spooky when he does look entirely human.
My idea of a higher being, if ever asked, is nothing like a supernatural simply because I have never seen it.
Angels being portrayed as half humans and half birds with wings is rather disturbing because that was not what I had in mind when I think of higher being.
How does one ever came to that conclusions that higher beings looks like that when you compare it to the looks of Jesus who is human in appearance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

do you link religion/god with supernatural force/being or do you think it is just a fact of life and let's just get on with it.

I find consider supernatural to be related with sci-fi/fantasy/fairy stories and not a goddly matter.
The reason I think is because I have no understanding of how a concept of something natural has become super in the sense that it has, as protrayed by books and media, some sudden superpowers such as the likes of superman/woman comes to mind. Superman power is to fly for example and move momumental buildings.
It is rather spooky when he does look entirely human.
My idea of a higher being, if ever asked, is nothing like a supernatural simply because I have never seen it.
Angels being portrayed as half humans and half birds with wings is rather disturbing because that was not what I had in mind when I think of higher being.
How does one ever came to that conclusions that higher beings looks like that when you compare it to the looks of Jesus who is human in appearance.

---

You know? I wondered about that from time to time. I think it's just from different perspectives. Some take it literally and some takes it way overboard. It's funny actually because I just watched "Legion" and...Well, it was crazy. Hahaha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo_Sephiroth

You know? I wondered about that from time to time. I think it's just from different perspectives. Some take it literally and some takes it way overboard. It's funny actually because I just watched "Legion" and...Well, it was crazy. Hahaha!

---

I have to say I have never heard of 'Legion'.
Is that a documentary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I have to say I have never heard of 'Legion'.
Is that a documentary?

---

Actually, it's a movie. The plot is actually fitting for this topic. It's about Michael, the angel. I read that he's an archangel but here they never mention it. Anyway, he's protecting a bunch a folks in a diner...Yeah, a diner. The plot is...Uh...Not going to win any award but it's fun to watch...Just once.

They totally took the angels thing to a very different level. Plus, they also have a tad different view of the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo_Sephiroth

Actually, it's a movie. The plot is actually fitting for this topic. It's about Michael, the angel. I read that he's an archangel but here they never mention it. Anyway, he's protecting a bunch a folks in a diner...Yeah, a diner. The plot is...Uh...Not going to win any award but it's fun to watch...Just once.

They totally took the angels thing to a very different level. Plus, they also have a tad different view of the Bible.

---

Haha I see.
You mention diner, do you mean to compare the last supper?
I do not know the difference between an angel and an archangel.

Hahaha! Nope, when I said "diner" I meant a place to eat. Yeah, in this case, a little joint just outside of Vegas. I guess they might have been trying to go for a comparison of the last supper. It didn't matter though because their attempt was...Crap. Pardon. :D

Umm...I'm not quite sure of the difference between the two but archangels are the ones with a charge over the other angels. They usually hold higher command, power and is said to be of the nine orders of celestial attendants of God in midieval angelology.

"angel," from the Greek, just means a messenger - in particular, God's messenger. Showing them with wings just symbolises their speed and their ability to fly "up" to Heaven. (Of course, saying that Heaven is 'up' is also metaphoric, or analogic or something.)

Archangel just means a superior kind of angel, but is a term given to those angels named specifically in the Bible - Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Azrael (and Satan.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"angel," from the Greek, just means a messenger - in particular, God's messenger. Showing them with wings just symbolises their speed and their ability to fly "up" to Heaven. (Of course, saying that Heaven is 'up' is also metaphoric, or analogic or something.)

Archangel just means a superior kind of angel, but is a term given to those angels named specifically in the Bible - Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Azrael (and Satan.)

---

Thank you Whifflinpin this is very useful.
I am surprised (Satan) is amongst the category of angelogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo_Sephiroth

Hahaha! Nope, when I said "diner" I meant a place to eat. Yeah, in this case, a little joint just outside of Vegas. I guess they might have been trying to go for a comparison of the last supper. It didn't matter though because their attempt was...Crap. Pardon. :D

Umm...I'm not quite sure of the difference between the two but archangels are the ones with a charge over the other angels. They usually hold higher command, power and is said to be of the nine orders of celestial attendants of God in midieval angelology.

---

Oops sorry misread it...haha..it should have been dinner with double N.
I forgot diner was American.:smile5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"angel," from the Greek, just means a messenger - in particular, God's messenger. Showing them with wings just symbolises their speed and their ability to fly "up" to Heaven. (Of course, saying that Heaven is 'up' is also metaphoric, or analogic or something.)

---

Actually, the Sumerian, Hebrew, Egyptian, Greek and Roman cosmologies explicitly describe (most of) the gods as dwelling in the sky (as in the literal sky above us).

The Sumerians believed the world started as a watery abyss, until either Enki or Marduk killed Tiamat, separated the freshwater and saltwater to make the sky and ocean, and fashioned the Earth out of her corpse (Enuma Elis). The gods dwell in the freshwater sky whereas dead humans are in the saltwater underworld (Epic of Gilgamesh).

The Hebrews borrowed the Sumerian cosmology pretty much wholesale, which explains why the Bible has so much in common with Sumerian mythology. This is especially evident in the Noahide flood myth (compare Utnapishtim and Atrahassis), which specifically describes God opening the "windows of heaven" to release the "waters above." The Third Commandment of the Decalogue also mentions that it is forbidden to make an image in the likeness of "the heavens above" or "the waters below."

The main pantheon of the Greeks and Romans were the "Olympians," literally those who dwelt on Mt. Olympus*... except for Hades, Lord of the Dead, whose realm was the literal underworld. Zeus, King of the Olympians, reigns over the sky, and the second god to exist in Hesiod's Theogony is Ouranos, the "starry sky."
*compare with "El Shaddai," meaning "God of the Mountain," in the Torah

The ancient Egyptians also believed that the gods dwell in the sky, and the sinful dead dwell in an abyssal underworld. The Sun God would die each night as he sank into the underworld, and be reborn as he ascended into the sky in the morning; souls of the dead were weighed against a feather, and the righteous would ascend to heaven, whereas the sinful would sink and be devoured by some sort of crocodile monster.

There are examples from other traditions as well, like the Chinese story of Zhu Rong, Gong Gong, and Nu Wa, or the Sky People from Polynesian folklore.

Quote:

---

Archangel just means a superior kind of angel, but is a term given to those angels named specifically in the Bible - Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Azrael (and Satan.)

---

The Tanukh (specifically the Book of Jude) only names one specific entity as an archangel, Michael. The Koran also specifically names Gabriel as an archangel. Gabriel and Raphael are usually assumed to be archangels (or else seraphim) as part of Jewish mysticism and Christian angelology. Dante's Inferno implies that Satan is a fallen seraph. I don't know of any historical source that identifies Azrael as an archangel, although it's possible (even likely). TLDR: angelology is complicated.

To the OP:

The term supernatural flows from a mindset that there are certain "laws of nature." These laws of nature are scientifically observable and discoverable and in general apply to all things and explain how they act and interact. Supernatural describes an event that is unable to be explained by these normal "laws" or a being who in his operations is able to operate in ways that are beyond or "defy" these laws.


As a Christian, to describe God in such a way that he is not supernatural is impossible (or at best straining the definitions of "Christian" "God" and "supernatural"). A Christian knows God as the Creator of the universe and, as such, the Creator and Sustain-er of the "laws of nature". I believe I'm borrowing from Sir Issac Newton when I say, the reason I expect the universe to be orderly and predictable (that is, to be scientifically understandable, explainable and explorable) is because I know the God who formed it to be wise, powerful, good and orderly.

As far as the recognizability of God, what is revealed to us is that he is spirit, while we are body and spirit. That means while we may need to picture him some way in order to think about him, and while he may appear in visible form or describe his actions in anthropomorphic terms, he actually has no body and therefore, no visible appearance. [Huge side bar: God has joined himself with a human nature (body and soul) through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This incarnation has not, nor will it ever, end. So we would be right in saying Jesus has a human body, but from that point speculation as to its appearance would be next to pointless.]


Regarding angels, first I strongly dispute the claims that Biblical cosmology (and therefore Hebrew cosmology) is "borrowed" from any ethnicity. I have never seen any evidence beyond bold assertions. However, that is a separate topic. The Bible says remarkably little about angels (It is remarkable because the fascination people, even Christians, have currently and have had in the past, which leads to tons of assumptions that have no basis in the Bible.) The Bible says they are created beings (that is, God made them), that they are spirit (that means, no body, but they can appear in visible form) and they are messengers or servants of God. Issiah described them in a vision of heaven as six-winged, but again, note that this was a vision. God himself described in this vision. The descriptions are real in that they teach about who God is and who/what the angels are, but in this particular genre of writing, it would be doing a grave injustice to assume the wings were physical and had feathers which could be pluck, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Regarding angels, first I strongly dispute the claims that Biblical cosmology (and therefore Hebrew cosmology) is "borrowed" from any ethnicity. I have never seen any evidence beyond bold assertions. However, that is a separate topic.

---

I studied Judaism and Sumerian literature, and I find that to be a pretty bold assertion itself. Care to elaborate? Are you saying that the Hebrew sources predate the Sumerians or that there are no parallels between the Hebrew and Sumerian literature? Because I don't think either argument is very defensible.

I'm a Christian so yes, I believe in the "supernatural." To me science seems "supernatural." The things which science describe and explain seem just as fanciful and amazing as Zeus appearing in the form of a golden shower or a Norse god shaking the earth and sky and sea.

When you talk about Archangels as angels who have a spicific role given to them, then yes. The Holy Quran mentions Gabriel (Jibreel in the arabic text, if we want to be so accurate) in addition to others, but not so many.

Regarding Legion, lol I saw the movie, and thought it was kinda like one of those sorry attempts to make a horror zombie movie. Was kinda stupid, but fun for just... you know, the heck of it. Blizzard's Diablo III is almost similar this sense, the angels and demons' eternal conflict and all that caboodle. But there's no mention to God in their storyline.

People seem to mistake Satan as a 'fallen angel' but that's not true at all. Angels are 'beings of light,' while Devils and Demons are 'beings of fire.' Satan is a devil, he got cursed by God because Satan thought of himself superior and showed clear revultion towards Adam.

Again, Satan was never an angel, he was - and still is - a demon.

Just wanted to point that out.
Awesome topic, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorSunshine

I studied Judaism and Sumerian literature, and I find that to be a pretty bold assertion itself. Care to elaborate? Are you saying that the Hebrew sources predate the Sumerians or that there are no parallels between the Hebrew and Sumerian literature? Because I don't think either argument is very defensible.

---

I too have studied the Hebrew Old Testament at length and have read the Gilgamesh epic and portions of Enuma Elish, although I will grant my study of Sumerian sources is not as extensive as that of Hebrew sources.

I have not said the Hebrew sources predate the Sumerians (although this is my belief, I see no need to argue it now). Nor have I said there are no parallels. I have said that I have often heard the idea that Hebrew writings and concepts of God have borrowed from the Sumerian, but I have never seen objective evidence to support this assertion.

I have, in personal study of both sources, been amazed at how apparent similarities are in fact quite different. Do both have creation accounts? Yes, but having read both I find the composition, tone and actual events recorded to be strikingly unique. The same is true of the flood account.

I find that the evolutionary theory of religion is being imposed upon the actual facts. This theory argues that all religions developed from merely human sources and influences and have changed over time. The fact that is has a massively important presupposition (namely, that no religion is actually true) makes it of limited use in understanding any religion or the universe in general. I find this theory being used to ignore facts and discredit religions, specifically Christianity. The specific theories it spawned a generation or two ago (denying the existence of an Israel until the 500's BC, late theories of the Exodus, denial of the historicity of nearly every event recorded in the Old Testament) have gradually succumb to better research and archeology. I have little doubt theories in vogue currently will fair similarly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

To the OP:

The term supernatural flows from a mindset that there are certain "laws of nature." These laws of nature are scientifically observable and discoverable and in general apply to all things and explain how they act and interact. Supernatural describes an event that is unable to be explained by these normal "laws" or a being who in his operations is able to operate in ways that are beyond or "defy" these laws.


As a Christian, to describe God in such a way that he is not supernatural is impossible (or at best straining the definitions of "Christian" "God" and "supernatural"). A Christian knows God as the Creator of the universe and, as such, the Creator and Sustain-er of the "laws of nature". I believe I'm borrowing from Sir Issac Newton when I say, the reason I expect the universe to be orderly and predictable (that is, to be scientifically understandable, explainable and explorable) is because I know the God who formed it to be wise, powerful, good and orderly.

As far as the recognizability of God, what is revealed to us is that he is spirit, while we are body and spirit. That means while we may need to picture him some way in order to think about him, and while he may appear in visible form or describe his actions in anthropomorphic terms, he actually has no body and therefore, no visible appearance. [Huge side bar: God has joined himself with a human nature (body and soul) through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This incarnation has not, nor will it ever, end. So we would be right in saying Jesus has a human body, but from that point speculation as to its appearance would be next to pointless.]


Regarding angels, first I strongly dispute the claims that Biblical cosmology (and therefore Hebrew cosmology) is "borrowed" from any ethnicity. I have never seen any evidence beyond bold assertions. However, that is a separate topic. The Bible says remarkably little about angels (It is remarkable because the fascination people, even Christians, have currently and have had in the past, which leads to tons of assumptions that have no basis in the Bible.) The Bible says they are created beings (that is, God made them), that they are spirit (that means, no body, but they can appear in visible form) and they are messengers or servants of God. Issiah described them in a vision of heaven as six-winged, but again, note that this was a vision. God himself described in this vision. The descriptions are real in that they teach about who God is and who/what the angels are, but in this particular genre of writing, it would be doing a grave injustice to assume the wings were physical and had feathers which could be pluck, etc.

---

Do we have to regard God as transcending the universe? Can God be part of the universe and subject perhaps to certain 'laws of nature' as he directs and shapes events within the universe? From this point of view, a sort of 'process theology,' it makes sense to regard God as 'natural' rather than super or 'trans' natural. The question arises, what are the minimal conceptual requirements that have to be satisfied in order for us to be able to say we are actually talking about 'God?' To talk about Newton, he assumed that God was 'rational,' as it were, and so would create a rationally ordered universe. But is it conceptually necessary to talk in these terms about God? R D Laing argued that the universe was irrational and so one could say that God is in fact mad. Perhaps, however, this says more about r d laing...

With regards angels perhaps they say something about us. Are they imagic manifestations of sublime and rareified feeings? If that doesn't sound too flowery. My suspicion is that the origin of religions is situated in our emotional life. I met a girl once. She was heavenly. I thought she was an angel...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monamy

When you talk about Archangels as angels who have a spicific role given to them, then yes. The Holy Quran mentions Gabriel (Jibreel in the arabic text, if we want to be so accurate) in addition to others, but not so many.

Regarding Legion, lol I saw the movie, and thought it was kinda like one of those sorry attempts to make a horror zombie movie. Was kinda stupid, but fun for just... you know, the heck of it. Blizzard's Diablo III is almost similar this sense, the angels and demons' eternal conflict and all that caboodle. But there's no mention to God in their storyline.

People seem to mistake Satan as a 'fallen angel' but that's not true at all. Angels are 'beings of light,' while Devils and Demons are 'beings of fire.' Satan is a devil, he got cursed by God because Satan thought of himself superior and showed clear revultion towards Adam.

Again, Satan was never an angel, he was - and still is - a demon.

Just wanted to point that out.
Awesome topic, by the way.

---

Are you sure about that? I always thought that yeah, Satan is a demon now. But before at the very beginning, there was Satan (originally called Lucifer i think) and a third of the angels, and Satan basically thought he was superior, hence why he got cast away along with some other angels.

In Isaiah 14 it mentions Lucifer and how he 'fell from heaven'.